You sometimes need to keep old people away from the keyboard.
Patrick O'Donovan, the politician in question, is 36 years old. My father is a 70-year-old web developer. Sure, in general younger people probably understand the internet better than older people, but there are so many exceptions to this in both directions that any generalization based on age is pretty well meaningless.
I'm currently devoting nearly all of my hate to Doge. It might be the worst thing the internet has done in a long, long time.
wow, no love, much sad
No, this one is taken seriously. Other lawyers don't want these guys to be lawyers. I agree with cynicism towards bar enforcement generally, but this one is rightfully a hot button.
Note that there is a very serious free speech issue here too. It's still unclear what attorneys can or should say on websites and it ads.
Disbarment would be a very rare sanction! But at least most attorneys (generally as decent as anyone) and the public agree on something.
And, uh, actually chasing an ambulance and causing accidents is a whole 'nuther problem.....
I don't think "good guy with a gun" was ever really defined, and regardless the NRA has opposed virtually any kind of restriction on gun sales—like the gun show loophole—so it is quite hard to believe they consider the good guy part any of their business or the government. Maybe they mean good guy as determined after the fact of the shooting, which it is true would be 100% accurate and 100% useless in making anyone safer. No, "good guy" is just more cynical crap from one of America's richest lobby groups.
It's a funny wisecrack but note.... "Ambulance chasing" is grounds for disbarment. The bar imposes a waiting period of several weeks, as it should. And most lawyers don't regard the ones who approach victims and their families, looking to skim easy cases, with any high regard—like any profession, there are the good and the bad.
Clippy will be reborn!
Except for the problem that being a single parent is 100% an individual choice
You do not stop being a parent when your spouse or partner leaves. Which is, you know, not always your choice.
for individuals born with their reproductive systems on the inside.
But not for people with external genitalia? Right, they have no choice at all. Their sperm just magically leap out and impregnate passers-by.
Why would somebody choose to have children they can't afford? Perhaps it's because we have so many entitlement systems
Look at overall birth rates before and after food stamp programs were enacted. Go ahead. We'll wait.
that having a child guarantees a middle-class lifestyle
You actually believe this, don't you? Dear God.
and perhaps another factor is how much we privilege Mothers.
"Privilege" and "public assistance" are not really things that have much to do with each other.
belief is an arbitrary decision to insist something is true
I think that's a little too narrow a definition; the word for what you're talking about is "faith." I've often been asked if I "believe in evolution," and although the choice of words makes me cringe, the short answer has to be "yes." The longer answer is: I believe in evolution (or gravity, for that matter) the same way I believe in Philadelphia. Now, I don't know that Philadelphia exists. I've never been to Philadelphia. I've heard about it, and read about it, and seen road signs in pointing toward it, and even known a number of people who claim to have lived in it, but in answer to Ken Ham's famous question, no, I wasn't there. I have no personal proof that it exists, and yet I believe there is a city called Philadelphia. And I will insist pretty strongly that this belief is true, but there's nothing arbitrary about it.
There are alternate explanations, of course. Perhaps Philadelphia did exist up until five minutes ago, but no longer does. Perhaps there was never a Philadelphia, but someone decided there was money to be made by pretending there was, and put together an elaborate deception to convince people of it. Perhaps it's all just a mass hallucination. But the simplest and most rational interpretation of the evidence is that Philadelphia exists
So what I wrote in my previous post, "the same way you believe in gravity," may not have been quite right. What I should have said was probably something like "just as strongly as you believe in gravity," because the beliefs stem from different sources, one from faith and one from evidence. But "God created the world in six days, six thousand years ago" and "gravity exists" are both statements of belief. And if you don't understand that both beliefs are held with equal sincerity by large numbers of people, you will consistently underestimate those who hold to the former.
This is typical authoritarian bravado. China invests heavily in a field that generates PR for nationalistic pride (with a dual military purpose.) Meanwhile, they don't even have a postal address system. Don't be fooled by the hype. Yes, their economy will be the largest, simply due to their numbers. (If the Chinese simply earned per capita one third of the US average income, they'd be a larger economy than the US.)
Yes, exactly! There are a whole bunch of things "everybody knows" that just aren't true, and until we study these things we have no real way to know which is which.
Why do we insist on speculating that animals have all of these magical abilities, like the ability to tell which way is north, ability to tell when an earthquake is coming, ability to tell when a person has cancer, etc. Humans are animals too, and yet we can't do any of these things (without tools). Frankly, I think the people who say animals can do these things are just full of crap.
Different species have different senses, and levels of senses. Your eyesight is much, much keener than a dog's, although not as good as an eagle's; your sense of smell is much better than the eagle's, but nowhere near as good as the dog's. And the way brains with very different structures process the information is different too. Is that really so difficult to believe?
To be a creationist you need to be irrational, so there cannot be a debate here.
It's a little more complicated than that. Have you ever listened to Ken Ham speak, or read anything he's written? His arguments are entirely logical, as long as you accept his premises. He starts with a certain set of assumptions (mainly the literal truth of Genesis) and reasons from there. The premises themselves are utterly irrational, of course, but that doesn't mean everything else he says is necessarily irrational as well. In fact, he has a lot in common with the generations of Catholic theologians who have built the intellectual foundation of the Church, applying their often-impressive powers of reason and debate to exploring the logical implications of a profoundly silly set of postulates. It's kind of amusing to see a fundamentalist Protestant arguing like a Jesuit, but that's neither here nor there
Thinking that your opponents don't believe what they say they believe is almost always a mistake.
There are millions of creationists who believe, utterly and sincerely, that God created the world and everything in it in six days a few thousand years ago. They believe that the same way you believe in gravity. Of course their beliefs are "patently ridiculous"--it doesn't matter. The belief itself is real, and you underestimate that reality at your peril.
Meanwhile, the British Midlands have barely seen a frost this year. Your anecdote about Minnesota is worth no more than mine about England.
Everything important in the world happens in the US, didn't you know? That silly "rest of the world" thing is irrelevant.
Sotomayor is generally considered one of the most liberal Supreme Court Justices, but here she is issuing a ruling that will make conservatives very happy. In other words, she made the decision based on legal principles instead of her personal ideology. Don't hold your breath waiting for, say, Thomas or Alito to do the same, ever.
An adequate bootstrap is a contradiction in terms.
